16 December 2012

Politics is harder than tactics

The first Continental Congress met in 1774, and it wasn't until 1788 that the basis for our modern government emerged.    That is 14 long years of well educated men debating the proper place of government, trying to balance the need to protect individual liberty with the need to have an effective government.

I can imagine the hot summer days, no air conditioning, and men who had no modern distractions of television or internet to pull their minds away from the task at hand.  I often wonder how many of our founding fathers thumbed through a copy of "Republic" or "Leviathan" as they argued what the shape of the future should look like.

14 years to collectively look at a problem.  14 years to learn, debate, and gain a common understanding of the economic, social, and political realities facing the 13 colonies cum states.  In contrast the war for independence lasted from 1775 to 1783, a mere 8 years.  Anyone remember the first president of the United States?  John Hanson?  He served a one year term, and notably John Hancock was also President a few years later.

More than once I've been tempted to say "screw it" and avoid blogging about the politics of freedom, and where we want to end up in the future.  But then I remember the founding fathers, and they didn't get it perfectly right in 14 years.

It is easy to learn the tactics of the Infantry.  It is hard to build a government that encourages citizens to learn the tactics of the Infantry because it has no fear of revolution, because it enjoys the full consent of the governed from who it draws legitimacy.

On another historical note, Congress met in a large number to taverns, a practice that I think should be adopted again. 


Mt Top Patriot said...

Hear Hear AM!
I'll drink to that.

Like the saying goes, guns are easy, logistics are hard.

Trying to shoot ones way into Liberty is easy, making that Liberty last is hard.

It is reason that helped the founders create Liberty, it is reason that is going to restore this Republic. It is reason that is absent in our government. And since this is no matter what any one says, still a government of, for, and by the people, and, it is up to us of the people to restore reason to the process of being governed.
Certainly, that is not possible with the sociopaths running the show. They have failed their purpose of continuing the reason that created the positions that they occupy, some with malice and forethought, some through ignorance and neglect, some with design, intent, to dissolve the Liberty and freedoms that stand in their way of ulterior motives.

It is critical for all who have a care for this here republic to understand something at the heart of everything. It is we, us, you I, all of us, who are the sovereign entity that constitutes this form of government we enjoy. It us, we, you and I, all of us, who enjoy the ultimate power to change, whether it is through arms or peaceful redress, the form of government that exists at this moment, and what constitutes the crux of it all, is sooner or later, we all have to get it through our heads, that it us us who are legitimate, no one else, not the president, nor the military, nor the representative or regulative branches of government, it us you and I, who carry the crown of legitimacy, it is by the very nature of the unalienable primal rights and freedoms that belong to us, and the government constituted to protect that Liberty. The day when people decide, begin to figure out, understand and grasp this truth of us, it is then that Liberty wins the day.

At every turn our government has violated the law and intent of the mandate of Liberty. It never creates Liberty, it never creates equality of men. It violates the very nature of the sovereign being of the individual through force, and threat of enforcing ultimately this tyranny through the barrel of its guns. It certainly can not create prosperity, that absolutely essential ingredient to Liberty.

When we cower, or genuflect, to the ruling classes, we legitimize everything anathema, abherent, to our very Liberty.

It is time to de-legitimize the extra constitutional power of the state and it's actors. Through this action, by the very nature of the truth, one creates a crisis of legitimacy, an existential threat to the foundations of tyranny.

The beauty of this form of redress is it is grass roots all the way. What is required to give this act of defiance legs is through communication. As AM suggested, meetings in taverns, invite a friend or 2 to an evening of rational discourse on the idea of Liberty and the reason that our founders utilized to create our governing documents, our nation.

This what folks like AM, TL Davis, John Mosbey, Mike Vanderboegh, Andrew Skoursen, Daniel Greenfield, Joseph Martino, Mark Levin, Brandon Smith, Dr. Jerry Pournelle, Angelo M. Codevilla and so many more thoughtful reasoned contemporaries are attempting in each his own way. They have much to say, they risk much also, but they alone are akin to a fart in a hurricane without a conscious public who take up the cause and run with it.

We don't need agree on everything, we just need to agree we are the legitimate sovereign will and the final voice in the rules of law of OUR land.

And to never ever forget it.

Change your thinking.

It is important to note, for I am sure I am not alone in this, many feel isolated, alone, ineffectual, because we are, because we of Liberty have been marginalized and disenfranchised by the 5th column campaign of agitprop lies and character assassination.

Finding like minded folks, in the flesh, creating a constructive discourse is another critical ingredient towards Liberty.

Joe said...

We don't always agree on everything but I applaud you on posting what you do. While I think we are like minded, you do make me think about and defend my beliefs which I feel makes me more intellectually honest.

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget that back in the day, they had no compunction or squeamishness about throwing demonstrably crazy people into insane asylums, rather than suffer their wanderings about the debates to chime in whenever their inner demons plucked their vocal cords.

Best Regards,

AM said...

Aesop, that would get rid of half the Democrats...

Anonymous said...

Well, that's a decent start then.

But can we, once and for all, disabuse the lazy, the crazy, and the ignorant once and for all of the foolish notion that no government has any honorable recourse to force, when in fact government using force is what government DOES.

Oh no, let's not take my word for it:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

This from a man who served the government, ran the government, and fought through eight years of war to establish the government whereof he wrote. We have no finer example of an actual living breathing liberty-loving patriot than that, and may never see the like again, and he was in no doubt about the government's legitimate recourse to force OF NECESSITY, as its core attribute.

If anyone can't wrap their head around such a fundamental truth, they have no business confusing what they're about with pretend camouflage, using words like "liberty" or "freedom".

They're about rousing a rabble and leading a mob, whether they know it or not.

Best Regrads,

Anonymous said...

"They're about rousing a rabble and leading a mob, whether they know it or not."

Y'know, I can't figure out whether your strongest suit is your couching of drivel in such flowery prose, or your hypocrisy. I'm pretty sure it's the hypocrisy, with this particular charge being a prime example.

That's ALL you do, is try to lead a mob. Get 'em cheering, and especially get 'em cheering AGAINST something. Appeal to the lowest common denominator---"You were taught this is true and I'm sayin' this is true, so go fight--and give up your very life--because this is true."

Then it's on and on, calling THIS "freedom" and "liberty." And men who try to protect themselves from it, are some kind of wild nutcases wearing tin-foil hats.

All from the cloak of anonymity, quoting one government leader but forgetting the others. Shall we dig up a few, or do only yours count?

Yep, I think it's your hypocrisy that nobody can beat. AM, this is your blog, so if you don't me to write here, just ask. But until you do, I'm tellin' it like it is and hopefully saving a mind or two in the process. We are where we are PRECISELY because of this philosophical claptrap. And more, it's always dished out in PRECISELY this fashion.

This isn't about government versus no government; that's just Aesop's current meme to distract the issue. He simply LOVES to distract the issue. The issue is about who owns YOUR life, and the next guy's and the next guy's...

This country was founded on a simple principle---you do, and so does he and he and he...

But Aesop's here to tell you that you don't, that it's up to a vote or something, or maybe his wild version of what you ought to be. Sure he doesn't word it like that, but that's just because on top of everything else, he almost never tells it straight.


Anonymous said...

Pull all the quotes you want, Jim.

Contrary to most of your whining, that would at least demonstrate that you had something besides "Is not!" to come back with every time you disagree with anyone, or they disagree with you.

Dive right in, and tell us all how George Washington was a babbling moron, and whose puny accomplishments and minimal experience stand no chance when compared to your political acumen.

I fed you the quote, word for word. Now it's all between you and GW. Take him apart, there's no one and nothing stopping you now but pure lack of native ability. Put up or shut up.

Either way, this'll be the shortest contest since Mike Tyson went 28 seconds for a knockout.


Anonymous said...

Trouble reading? I wrote, "All from the cloak of anonymity, quoting one government leader but forgetting the others."

So do you write from the cloak of anonymity? So did you quote one government leader, but forget all the others? Yes and yes, so that case is closed.

Besides, Washington's claim is not under dispute. Mao was famous for saying exactly the same thing and there's not a soul here or anywhere that doesn't recognize that government is all about force. I mean, duh; that's hardly a newsflash.

The issue is NOT what to do about ne'er-do-wells or criminals or conquerors or any of that. Who can't figure that out...you gotta stop 'em and if you don't, you die. Not exactly rocket science.

No, the issue is what about the decent folk, the vast majority who want to live their lives in peace, and trade and build and produce. Granted you may know nothing about that, but that's how almost everyone is. Surprise.

The issue is about whether or not the force that's necessary against ne'er-do-wells is also necessary against decent folk. You say it is, and I say it's not. That's all; there's nothing more to see here.

It's about who owns a man's life and who gets to decide how he lives it. You want it to be the vote or worse, as if democracy wasn't shown to be a gross evil centuries ago, including by many of the Founders. But you'll just skip over that little fact. What else would a philosophical con man do?

You want it to be rule of the mob, even as you charge others with rabble-rousing a mob. What else would a hypocrite do?

Hey look, I'm pretty sure you've done some tough things in your life and I even know that they were motivated by a decent intent. That's not under question nor dispute. What's under dispute is whether the suffering you've endured should properly be transferred to your countrymen. Sorry, but the answer to that is, "No." That's all.

A man gets a better life by choosing a better life, not by having everyone else live a worse life. So do it and STFU already about how everyone else ought to live theirs. When everything is stripped away, that's all your (our) damn government is doing, and there not a drop of sense that can possibly defend it. So stop pretending there is; defend something that's worthy of defense.


Another Anon said...

The question none of youseems have an answer for is "what do we agree to use force for"

We all want Freedom, to be governerned by our own peoples and customs, but hell the Leftards want that too . |What

What we want is "negative Liberty" the absence of constraint by the State

The question at hand is what are the terms and conditions of this Liberty ?

What rights are inalienable ? Which rights are actually privileges. Can non State entities grossly infringe your rights? Can you sign them away ? Does everyone even get rights? and so on.

Till that done, at best you can have a war of reduction and I don't think the patriots see themselves as the rightful heirs of El Sendero Luminoso

Anonymous said...

Blah blah blah. Get a new schtick.

It's the internet, Jim. Get over it.

And no, I didn't "forget" all the other quotes, I quoted the one that was relevant to another post. I'm sorry relevance baffles you.

If Washington's claim is not under dispute, why your frothing fury? But I'm calling bullshit on Mao saying "exactly the same thing". But thanks for letting us all know you think there's no difference between China under Mao and the U.S. under Washington. It's instructive for evaluating your other claims.

But HOW are you - an Army of One - going to stop anyone? Will you huff and puff? Dazzle them with bullshit? I mean, seriously, you'd be hardpressed to stop the Little Rascals, let alone a simple carload of gangbangers. So when you have to stop "conquerors", who ya gonna call? Anarchists Anonymous??

And here's where you absolutely lose your mind, as usual: GEORGE WASHINGTON said that government is force, not me. Whether that force needs to be used against "decent folks" rather begs the question of exactly how decent they are, doesn't it? Washington never did the things the TSA or the BATFE does? Was he just a slacker, holding back? Or can it possibly be that people like you, too busy to be bothered to monitor who you send in his stead 200+ years later, haven't paid enough attention to whom you've handed the reins of power? When John Adams said that our "Constitution was written for a moral and religious people, but was wholly inadequate to govern any others", and the government that used to work then, doesn't now, wherein lies the failure? Did Adams AND Washington get the entire idea of government wrong, because they're not as smart as you either? Or is it just barely possible that as a people, we're far less moral and religious than what we once were, and what the maintainence of our nation requires? Puzzle that out for us.

And the founders never argued in favor of democracy, nor do I. They argued for a representative republic. Ignorance of that fact explains your confusion on why democracy doesn't work, because you mistake that for the form of government you live under.

I'm certainly not bucking to live your life, or anyone else's. What's bitch-slapping you around is facts, Jim, and the cold sting will keep coming back until you realize the truth won't go away just because you would wish it so.

The only "ought" I've given to anyone, has been to you.
You ought to get help, you ought to read and understand that which you would so cavalierly burn to ashes, and you ought to learn basic functional language skills. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric were the Trivium since before Socrates' time acknowledged as the basis fr all other learning. Your lack of grasp on those fundamentals is and will continue to be your undoing, despite entertaining untold numbers worldwide with the trainwreck you pilot with each new foray.


Anonymous said...

Another Anon,

I don't want the "absence" of constraint by the state, I want a barest minimum of it. If the state constrains no one, it isn't a state. It's a figment of imagination, unless we're going to appoint a Minister of Harsh Language.
("Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop' again!")

Prohibiting child molesters from predations on 5 year olds, for example, constrains people that ought to be constrained. (Jim apparently views even this much as soul-sucking dictatorship. To do otherwise would undermine his entire line of argument to date.)

And seriously, do we really need to re-invent the wheel on natural law and unalienable rights, as if no one's ever done this groundwork before?

If you're asking "At what point to infringements upon individual liberty become sufficient to justify rebellion, at the moment, it's a lot like the Supreme Court's definition of pornograhy: no one can describe it, but they know it when they see it.

If there's to be that sort of tipping point, I think it fair to say we haven't reached it, yet.
If only by noting that no one seems to be shooting at the government to any overall purpose.
But FWIW, at last look at the Bill of Rights, I think Amendment III is the only one in 200 years not showing any serious evidence of having been sodomized.


Anonymous said...

See, you can't go a single comment without being boldly dishonest. Washington said this: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force," and Mao said this, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

They appear (to me) to mean the same thing, so I wrote,

"Besides, Washington's claim is not under dispute. Mao was famous for saying exactly the same thing and there's not a soul here or anywhere that doesn't recognize that government is all about force. I mean, duh; that's hardly a newsflash."

Yet you wrote, "But thanks for letting us all know you think there's no difference between China under Mao and the U.S. under Washington."

You're nothing but a two-bit hack...misquoting and misattributing what others write.
Now if you want to explain how those two statements don't mean the same thing, then go right ahead. But even you ought to be swift enough to understand that claiming they mean the same thing is rather different than claiming two countries under two leaders are the same thing.

Why yes, you are that swift. I guess that means you're just dishonest.

"But HOW are you - an Army of One - going to stop anyone?"

It has been explicitly addressed by me that an "Army of One" ain't gonna do it. I even used numbers in a comment to AM. But there you go again, misrepresenting what the other guy is saying. Gee, why do you do that? Hmm...tough one, that.

"What's bitch-slapping you around is facts, Jim, and the cold sting will keep coming back until you realize the truth won't go away just because you would wish it so."

Okay, that's mainly hypocrisy but it merits honorable mention anyway. You, who not only evade the facts but actually replace them with non-facts, make a charge like this? Really, too funny.


Now maybe you can spend a moment on the actual topic. Yes, there's a HUGE difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. Here's a shocker for you...I can actually stomach the latter, at least if it exists as this one was intended to be, or so I'm told.

But since you don't deal in the facts, but only what you pretend the facts are, you enter this...

"They argued for a representative republic. Ignorance of that fact explains your confusion on why democracy doesn't work, because you mistake that for the form of government you live under."

Uh, no...that's not the form of government I live under, and neither do you nor anyone else here. Period. Was it meant to be one? I suppose so, though there's debate about that. Could it have been one? Maybe, but I don't know; I'm not big on counterfactual imaginations. That's your forte.

But what is a FACT is that we DO NOT live in a Constitutional Republic. Period; that's all. I admit to not knowing whether a CR can even exist in reality, but it doesn't matter for this. This isn't one, and THAT is the point in question.

Men intending to create one, or you being dishonest about what one is, really doesn't change the fact.

Now, you say we'll somehow vote our way back into one. I think that's absurd but even if it were right, it's an argument for democracy.

So while it may be the case that you're in favor of a Constitutional Republic--though I see no reason to trust you on that, in view of your incessant dishonesty on everything else--it's still the case that you believe we can make one happen by voting on the matter. This, as we all know, is democracy. Q.E.D.

So we finish as we started, you being dishonest in order to distract from the actual issues under question. A thing is what it is; I guess that includes you.


Anonymous said...

"Prohibiting child molesters from predations on 5 year olds, for example, constrains people that ought to be constrained. (Jim apparently views even this much as soul-sucking dictatorship. To do otherwise would undermine his entire line of argument to date.)"

You're disgusting. Go ahead scumbag, explain to the good readers how "prohibiting" is the same as "stopping."

Why, what are you saying...that they should be prohibited but not stopped?

Typical "thought leader" bullshit---we need to prohibit, but let's not talk about stopping. Gee, that nutcase last week was prohibited from murdering kids, wasn't he?

Okay, we saw your system at work.

Ron said...

If you think about it, politics works much as a Committee does in a business setting. With too much input by too many people, little gets done in a timely manner and usually the decisions made are tepid, watered down, and often obviously bad. Bold, good ideas are shot down in favor of the lackluster and “easy” path that often leads to ruin.

"too many cooks spoil the broth."

Tactical considerations tend to have just a few well-skilled leaders who make the decisions and give direction to the herd. Things get done quickly and efficiently. New and bold ideas are welcome and considered.

Mt Top Patriot said...

I figure it all, everything, starts with myself. That starts with the Liberty below my feet, and extends outward, beginning with my embrace of my primal rights of self defense.
Because if I can not defend my right to self defense there is nothing I can defend.

May I humbly but forthrightly share one of the things I do to defend my Liberty from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
(PS, please by all means, feel free to poach on anything I comment about.)

My December 18th 2012 letter to Sen. Joe Manchin:

Heading: Treason

Dear Senator,
You took an Oath of Office to defend and protect the US Constitution. By consequence that extends to protecting all Liberty and unalienable freedoms and rights codified in our governing documents. You are my elected representative in Congress. I have no other representation in the upper house.

I ask of you to reply to my question:
What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution do you not understand?

This is a serious question. It is predicated upon the rule of law. Law that I as an American have to, and do, abide by.

The 2nd Amendment is the supreme law of the land, just as the constitutional amendment of prohibition against slavery is. What you have proposed concerning outlawing "assault weapons", is akin to violating prohibition against slavery by permitting just a little bit of slavery.

Please allow me to remind you the act of outlawing a particular arms, the fact of which is protected under the rule of law of the US Constitution, suggesting legislation which you have stated clearly needs to take place contrary to the supreme law of this Republic, requires a Constitutional Amendment. The very nature of the rule of Constitutional law clearly does not give you or any American the power nor right to pick or choose what is legal or not based on your political position, or of singular power of office.

You are by law beholden to the sovereign will of the people. A people who are morally bound to respect all laws regardless of their political stance.

I wish to stress upon you, you Mr. Manchin, are on a slippery slope. You portrayed yourself as a champion of the right to bear arms in your last election. In that portrayal, in a vivid display of firing a rifle on national television, you stated you are a steadfast proponent of the law pertaining to the 2nd Amendment in no uncertain terms. You did not prevaricate in your exhibition. It was clear at the time of your campaign you portrayed yourself as an honest moral truthful law abiding man, an American, to be trusted to defend Liberty.

In no uncertain terms I am writing you to tell you you have violated my trust in you to protect and defend my Liberty and this Republics Rule of Law. You have violated your Oath of Office. And you propose to extend that violation via extra constitutional laws prohibiting my right to defend myself from tyranny, my natural right to defend myself, from the very tyranny you represent.

In light of these facts, I consider your proposal to ban "assault weapons" nothing short of an act of treason.

Respectful regards and
your constituent,